Mean Purple
Active Member
unless somebody has won a suit somewhere, I think they are still good to go.
State of college football (and TCU) summed up.
- Thread starter Paint It Purple
- Start date
HornedFrogAz
Active Member
Doesn't sound like it's getting kicked that far, the dems generally don't want it (nor do unions or the players themselves.... for obvious reasons) but it's just a delay of the vote, and should still be sorted out before next season.
That said, I'm skeptical it will actually mean much. The big money/big alumni base schools have always been judged by a separate set of rules & nothing I've read about this makes me think that will change.
If you're a player why would you agree to play in a bowl game if you're not getting paid? Are "NIL, LOL" deals written where a player makes more money if they play in a bowl game?
This Ain't Chopped Liver
Active Member
That squashes the importance of becoming bowl eligible - the treat of a Bowl game as a reward, sheesh. It is for fans. Players don’t want the time spent practicing and Bowling to interfere with their down time and family time during Christmas and semester break. Shocking
For these bowl games to survive, they are going to have to start paying players. More and more each year as agents get involved, that's where this is headed.
froginaustin
Active Member
Sounds like a good idea to me. Unequal player pay. Winners get more.
Bring some excitement and eagerness to bowl games. I just wonder how much money it would take to gin up player interest, particularly in those players who are beat up from a 12 (or more) game season.
DeuceBoogieNights
Active Member
As a single individual player, no it probably doesn't, but as a program, getting the extra practice time is important. This is a strange decision to me.
Maybe strange, but not surprising to me at all if they left it up to a player vote. I think the "benefit of extra practices" thing to get better for next year is overblown, especially now with all the player movement.
FrogBall09
Active Member
the conferences created the CSC - not the NCAA - because they were told to by the House settlement and it was created to adhere to a court ruling that all deals over $600 have to be reviewed and approved.
Three ways it can be violated it - 1) not submit a contract for review. The CSC rules state the player is ineligible if they don't submit for review. 2) a player submits an NIL deal that is deemed in violation but signs it anyway - the player is ineligible 3) a school allows a player to play that has been deemed ineligible - each conference agreed the CSC has the authority to reduce conference revenue for the school and potentially ban post-season.
I am sure some player will get a lawyer to fight their "violation" NIL deal - but unlike the original ruling that allowed players to be paid via NIL, they now are paid by the school and the school has determined their value, they can still received NIL it just has to be market value based on the determination of a third party with no financial interest in the player or the school - so the original premise of the decision that players were being restricted from making money on their NIL is not a valid argument.
They are left arguing that some "booster" thinks they are getting the value for their money? there is a thousand case law precedents the CSC could cite related to everything from racketeering/RICO to foreign corrupt practices act to Snyder vs US to demonstrate quid pro quo since the will be no "market value" basis for the agreement.
If the conferences didn't want the CSC and NILGo - they didn't have to structure it or fund it the way they did - so it would seem they won't go out of their way to let schools ignore it.
FrogBall09
Active Member
problem with previous cases is they were all rulings based on the idea that athletes were not being compensated and were restricted from it - neither of those conditions are true anymore and nothing about the current structure violates those decisions. But future contracts to payment of players amounts beyond market value - pay to play - does violate the House ruling.
SCORE has nothing to do with the House ruling or the CSC - SCORE is the NCAA, the House ruling literally takes NIL away from the NCAA and forces the conferences to govern it via the CSC and NILGo.
Last edited:
As I posted 3 days back, the advantages to refusing the Bowl Game advantage the TCU program vs TCU accepting the Crap Bowl Game. Coaches have more time to evaluate the Tamper portal(and they need that time) This "well we get extra reps" with the young guys while they didn't play the young guys all season. Pure Hypocrisy. REJECT THE BOWL GAME TO MOVE FORWARD AND SEND A MESSAGE TO YOUR PLAYERS. Last season is not acceptable.
BrewingFrog
Was I supposed to type something here?
Yeah. That's not going to happen. Everybody gets a Bonus Check for making a Bowl Game. Do you think Sonny and his Crack Staff are going to turn down free moolah? Or our new AD? Nope. They're taking the money.
AroundWorldFrog
Full Member
Let us know when you beat ASU and do that.
BrewingFrog
Was I supposed to type something here?
I remember this book, Atlas Shrugged...
Klieman quit because The System now is perverted beyond recognition, or recovery. Guys like him, the Dinosaurs, the Disciplinarians, no longer have a place in College Football. At least at the top of the heap. The New System is one of instant transfer, vast pools of money sloshing around, social/Media clicks, and the brainlessness of the 18-year-old celebutard, all brought to you by ESPN*.
None of this is going to get any better. In fact, the descent into farce is just beginning. In not too long. it'll just be 32 or so Big Programs that are plastered on TV from early August until December. Early August? Yeah. Who says the Season starts when kids are in classes? By the way, what do you mean, classes? The Season starts when TV says it does. So there.
We're watching the slow-motion destruction of a thing of great beauty, and it's all for money. They're garroting the Goose That Laid The Golden Eggs just to they can rummage through her intestines to see if they can find anymore nuggets, without a care for the future, or the fulsome promise of what they just destroyed.
Yep. With BYU's situation and interviews like this on McAfee they aren't even hiding it.
BrewingFrog
Was I supposed to type something here?
This Ain't Chopped Liver
Active Member
You are in a defensive posture, now dropping horse puckey. As you stated, you have no perspective of having won on the field instead of by the dollar, so go ahead and keep on fooling yourself, for your Red Raiders pride. Don’t look back now; horse puckey is odoriferous, but you don’t have to look at it.
Last edited:
FrogBall09
Active Member
actually going to 32 team super league will stabilize it - because they will organize it like the NFL.
It might kill it - but I would guarantee all of these free agent, unknown payments, etc will go away because players will have contracts and be employees. I think the only open question for that is the legality of a University fielding a team where the players are not even students - does that totally change their ability to have a team under an NPO or do they have to form a new entity that "owns" the football team or the entire athletics program?
But I also don't think it will matter to TCU - because we won't be one of the 32 and the rest will move back to a model of student athletes simply because there will not be enough money to fight over anymore for the rest.
